Stupid Senators

It would seem to be another helping of the morality that Bush and the religious right is foisting or should I say shoving down the throats of the public at large. When, I wonder, will the book burning begin?

SORRY DUPLICATE POST

Finally, some specific questions are being asked regarding what can be censored and what cannot. It is why we must question why many acts of violence are accepted on broadcast television, and yet nudity is such a big no-no.

I've never known nudity to encourage people to break laws, but there are plenty of examples of crimes commmitted on public television which could suggest ways in which to break the law.

This just isn't as simple as, oh, say somebody suggesting that "...violence is not nudity." I mearly offered such an argument of nudity vs. violence in the hopes of generating this exact kind of dialogue.

Bravo!!

Interesting take, Dook. So where are we so far? What sorts of things should the government censor on the public airwaves and where are the potential slippery slopes?

violence?
nudity?
encouraging people to break laws?

Indeed, freeduck. It is a rather slippery slope, isn't it?

How about this moron?

Jael Phelps, granddaughter of The Rev. Fred Phelps, Sr,. was trying to defend the practice of their religion. She told a stunned Joe Scarborough:

Phelps: The prescribed punishment for homosexuality in the bible is death.

She then smiled!

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough%20Country_Phelps.wmv

Should we censor this woman because she agrees with the bible that homosexuals should be killed? Isn't that inciting violence against another human being? Or when Ann Coulter calls for the death of liberals?

Or is that all free speech protected by the 1st Amendment?

Oh, yes, it is a rather slippery slope. And it is indeed highly political right now. And right now, it has been the neoconservatives who have been setting this vitriolic tone on the airwaves.

Let's also not forget that the 99.8% of complaints received by the FCC during Michael Powell's tenure actually came from one organization, the Parents Television Council, which is a conservative activist group.

I am not sure what it is you are advocating Dookie.

Are you for or against censorship?

Look, the new season of Deadwood starts Sunday. It contains murder, nudity (Yes, even nipples!) and some of the foulest language I've ever heard.

I can't wait!

But, Coulter calling for death of liberals??? Humph! Censor her!

(Sorry, I'm still in shock that there is agreement between us regarding censorship of pay tv and radio)

What I DON'T advocate is the neoconservative movement to further censor things like, oh, statues, nudity within the context of serious subject matter (in other words, NOT PORN), premium channels like HBO and Showtime, etc. I also do not advocate neoconservatives using a costume malfunction to push their conservative political agenda. When it turns out that 98% of the complaints to the FCC came from one conservative activist group, then it becomes highly political.

Personally, I am against censorship, whether it be violence and/or nudity. If you don't like it, DON'T WATCH IT. If it is germaine to the subject matter (i.e., Shindlers List), then it is important to be seen and understood based on it's historical content (we shall never forget). If you want pornography, then go pay for it.

But putting drapes on an historical statue? The FCC fielding 98% of their complaints from one organization? This is the beginning of partisan censorship of the worst kind. And yet conservatives don't have a problem with religious and highly partisan zealots calling for the death of homosexuals, and for using a gay couple to demonize the AARP.

Where do YOU draw the line, McGentrix?

This whole discussion is now degraded into bullshit. Even when we agree, we question the motives of those on the other side .
NO censorship , period. If we want Deadwood,Stern, or the Sopranos, we take Ann Coulter and Molly Ivins and two left and right wing talking heads to be named later.
Any senator or Representative who presumes to speak for our morality should have his or her identity outed as a Midieval practitioner of sex with feral cats.


People who want more control against their own urges should get a bigger KNOB for their radios and TVs

I am sure I draw my line in a different place.

Any show my children watch should be free of nudity and graphic violoence. I make that judgement for them, I do not need the FCC or any other organization to do that for me.

As an adult, I also do not need an external organization judging what I can and cannot watch, I have a magic little device called a remote control that enables me to self-censor what I watch.

Things like eating pig anus's and raindeer testicles disgust me, but I understand some people may enjoy watching those things. I self-censor myself.

That's me though.

Ashcroft has a different line. He did not feel that having a naked statue behind him was appropriate. He covered it up. I see no big deal in that. I do not believe the public interest was harmed in any way.

I used to enjoy listening to Howard Stern every morning on the commute to work. I no longer have access to him because the local radio station removed him from the air because he was talking about his move to satellite radio due directly from the pressure exerted upon him from the FCC.

I do not feel the pressure was neccessary because from what I heard, I was not offended. However, people with values different than mine were and they complained. They were motivated enough to put their complaints to work. They did not just bitch about them on an internet forum.

I didn't complain. I understand their complaint, even though I don't agree with it, I understand it.

Some people have a difficult time distinguishing groups of people and their views on any level other than their political ideology.

Yes, Farmerman, bottom line: No censorship, period.

I couldn't agree more. And believe it or not, McGentrix, you and I are actually in full agreement on this.

But even though you deem it no big deal that Ashcroft covered a naked statue, I consider it a big deal because it sets a TONE for a clear minority who wish to force their collective idealism on a vast majority who WANT to see their violence AND their pornography, conservatives AND liberals alike.

It would seem as though these few individuals are not too privy to the wonders of a remote control.

And it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice when the FCC caves in to the complaints of just ONE specific group. How does that serve the majority of Americans who feel otherwise?

My earlier post regarding Ann Coulter was tongue in cheek. Just jestin'.


But, this does bring up an interesting thought. Try to follow me.

We all agree that we, as adults do not need or want our pay tv censored. We appear to agree that there is a distinction between public airwaves supported with collective tax dollars, and those that we pay for individually. We also appear to agree that censoring pay chennels and sat. radio would be an infringement of our rights to choose for ourselves what we want to see and hear.

But, this is a perfect example of opening the door to Count Dracula, and then being surprised when he bites you right along with the people that were trying to keep him out. How many times on these threads have Dems or liberals been derided for objecting to policies that open the door to personal rights restrictions, and been told that no rights had been or would be violated? These were laws, afterall, only intended to be applied to "terrorists."

And, when the liberals reply that we should all be outraged simply because the door is opened little by little to even allow the possibility of such violations and empower our government to legislate our morality in the name of security we are called conspiracy theorists and unpatriotic.

Then, when something like this comes along, conservatives are suddenly shoulder to shoulder with liberals expressing their outrage. It strikes me as some not understanding or caring until it affects them personally.

Perhaps the draping of the statue wasn't a big deal. Maybe the part of the Patriot Act that allows the government to enter your home and mine to search when we aren't home and without letting us know is necessary. Maybe the government does need to know every book a person rents from the library or buys at Barnes and Noble. Perhaps the government needs to be able to detain without charges for indefinant periods of time even if one is an american citizen. None of this applies to "us." right?

Hey, who opened the fricken door?

That was brilliant, Squinney. You also make all the points that I was trying to make.

Thanks!

Squinney writes


Wouldn't this be a two-way street? How many issues/problems/propsoals etc. do the liberals join with the conservatives on unless it is the liberal's ox being gored too? Don't you think unilateral expectations would logically be a tad selfish?

Like...???

Like for instance social security. Every Democrat, including Clnton, was proclaiming a crisis and spelling it out in graphic detail during the Clinton administration. Now the GOP is in charge and asking for ideas, proposals, plans, support, encouragement from everybody and the Dems are now saying there is no crisis and why isn't the GOP focusing on "that" instead?

That is one example only. There are many more. But this one is sufficient to make the point.

I just thought it ironic that here both sides found an issue they can agree on, but instead of appreciating that, the conservatives are being criticized now because they haven't agreed on everything?

Um, Fox, please show us where the GOP is "asking" for ideas? Last I saw, the GOP was basically demonizing the AARP, slamming seniors for being anti-military and pro-gay, and developing an all out Karl Rovian strategy to force private accounts down the throats of Americans without DETAILS; details like it'll cost trillions of dollars and that it won't work. NOw, how is that ASKING for ideas?

The GOP scare tactics regarding SS are EXACTLY the same as Bush's selling of the Iraq war. Is it any surprise that Bush's popularity has dropped regarding just about everything, INCLUDING SS?

But let's be more specific on what Clinton said regarding SS:





So, looks like the Democrats have had ideas, and continue to have ideas, regarding SS which are not NEARLY as expensive as what Bush proposes, but they are too busy fighting the egregious and disgusting acts of organizations such as GOPNext, who, along with the Swift Boat Veterans for Bullshite, are using homophobia to further their neoconservative ideological agenda. Not very honest, IMO...

Why not keep the debate honest, rather than do what Karl Rove did in scaring the nation into attacking Iraq? You know, like have an honest debate without scaring the living crap out of America again.

If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq on a lie and with scare tactics reminiscent of fascism, than perhaps he'd get more traction on SS. Such is not the case.

Next example...